In the post about Amelia Kelley (Part 4), I found out she died in childbirth in 1870 or 1871. I found her daughter, Amelia Beardsley, in the 1880 census living with the family of someone named John Collins. Young Amelia was listed as a niece.
I assumed Celia must be the blood relative, as opposed to John. Sure enough, a quick search in Ancestry confirmed that Celia was a Kelly.
And look at that: Patrick’s name is right there so I don’t have to prove that Celia is his daughter.
If he wasn’t mentioned in this document, there were other clues that she existed. First of all, in Tamar’s 1850 census record, John was listed as 26 years old and Mary was listed as 22 and then 4 more children were born every even year. A skip like that in a consistent line of births usually indicates that either another living sibling or the couple had lost a child. In his 1830 and 1840 census records, there was one young girl in the tallies I couldn’t account for. But I knew for sure there wasn’t a tragedy when Patrick’s obituary mentioned leaving 7 children behind.
So why is Celia so shifty and mysterious? She’s not. She wasn’t listed with her family in the 1850 census because she was already married and living with John Collins. The marriage record above states that she was under 18 at the time of the wedding and Patrick had to give his consent. By my count, Celia wasn’t much younger than 18 in 1844, though.
John and Celia were in Norwalk from 1844 until at least 1885. They had 5 children together, plus they took care of Amelia Beardsley, Celia’s niece. John died in 1885 in Norwalk. Celia died in Cincinnati in 1901. I await both of their obituaries from the Rutherford B. Hayes Library, which I will post when I receive them.